Humanities desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 16[edit]

Royalty and "style"[edit]

This question may not even be answerable but here goes: Princess' Beatrice and Eugine are very attractive young ladies. Why would they (or any of the Royals for that matter) wear such stupid looking hats (such as at the recent wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton)? I mean, hats should enhance one's beauty not take away from it. I can't understand why they do this. Anyone have any ideas? 99.250.117.26 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the answer is that hats are rarely worn to "enhance one's beauty". Instead, they are worn to assert one's status. The higher up the status totem-pole one is, the sillier the headgear one can get away with: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For free publicity.
Sleigh (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters suggested it was a way for their mother to get back at her former in laws for not being invited to the wedding. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this helmet on, I'm tall enough to go on all the carnival rides. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ===> [reply]

The British were not to be outdone - see Sir Henry Galway's plumage. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If you like it you oughta put an eagle on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If a princess can't break out of conformity and try something different, or even just have a laugh by acting a little silly, then who can?

It's not like the hats worn by ladies in the Victorian era were any less ridiculous. 66.31.230.189 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99.250.117.26 -- When you get to the "bleeding edge" of fashion, its purpose is not really to make yourself look attractive, but to push the envelope and call attention to your own ultra-trendiness. I would strongly doubt whether many straight males would find that most of what is paraded down haute couture runways enhances the women's attractiveness, since it's ultra-stylized kabuki which has very little to do with what most women wear most of the time. As a royal woman attending formal royal events, Beatrice has little opportunity to be ultra-trendy in most respects, but headgear is one area where flamboyant creativity is somewhat tolerated... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Anyway, you can buy it here, if you're willing to bid more than $15,000 for it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concensus of opinion in my social circle was that the princesses had inherited their mother's dress sense! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the Yorkies... you should see some of the hats that show up during Ascot Week (or, for that matter, some of the hats worn to the Kentucky Derby in the US). Such hats are considered high fashion in posh (and wannabe posh) circles. To some extent, the fault lies with the hat designers (who have to come up with something unique for their clients), and to some extent the fault lies with their clients (who can't seem to say 'are you nuts? I'm not going to wear that'). Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga wears weird things all the time. In this case it was only a hat. I expect the designer wanted to make a name for themselves. 92.28.245.12 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Treacy, the designer of the hats, already has a huge name for himself. There was even an episode of Project Runway last season in which the competitors had to design clothing to complement Tracey hats. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb threats and codewords[edit]

The UK news is buzzing today with rumours that an Irish terrorist group is planning to bomb central London, and great credit is being given to the threat because it was delivered using a "known codeword." Assuming that this doesn't just mean Gaelic (!) what exactly are these codewords? Are there any known examples? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked for Eurostar, we had training in how to respond to terrorist threats. We were told not to worry about codewords, as the threat was treated just as seriously whether or not one was given - and that in the experience of the ex-Special Branch officer running the course, the presence or absence of a codeword had little relationship to whether or not there actually was a bomb. DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the IRA and the Police had agreed a list of codewords, do you really think they'd be common knowledge? Every Tom, Dick and Eamonn would be calling up saying "I have a bomb and to prove it here's a codeword"! By 'eck, lad, use your head!--TammyMoet (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean, what words are used as codewords? I meant, what is the function they perform, are there any books that cover the subject etc.! ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently some pre-established way for the IRA (or whomever) to confirm with those on the other end that they are who they are. Here's an article from 1996 on the subject. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, these aren't generally given out, because that would lead to hoaxers using them. However, this book gives an example of a codeword used by the defunct Loyalist Volunteer Force: "covenant". This term holds significance for ulster loyalists, given the Ulster Covenant, and is unusual enough that it would be memorable to who received the call. I suspect that republican codewords are selected on a similar basis. Warofdreams talk 14:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Loyalist Volunteer Force is not totally defunct, it's on ceasefire (not the same thing). THe article says it was stood down in 2005, yet CAIN says it still has a few members. It's the Mid-Ulster UVF which are defunct having been stood down by the UVF Brigade Staff in 1996 and then most of its members having gone over to the LFV with Billy Wright.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Big wedding' was used as a code phrase by al Qaida. Dismas|^(talk) 04:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just before the 1998 Omagh bombing the Real IRA called Ulster Television using their code word "Martha Pope" which was recognised by the RUC hence the urgency to evacuate the people from High Street where the bomb was thought to be to Lower Market Street where it went off. It was the use od the code word which caused the RUC to take the threat seriously. Unfortunately, the caller gave the wrong location. Back in 1983 in Dublin there was a bomb scare in the city centre but the police told people in town it was likely a hoax as the caller used an outdated UDA codeword.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have part of an article about the famous P O'Neill codeword. I remember Unionist politicians insisting that some the war wasn't over until P O'Neill (as opposed to Provisional Sinn Féin) announced it. Matt's talk 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The invisible pink unicorn[edit]

Is comparing the possibility of a creative force existing and the presence of an IPU a valid analogy? Can all things that are unprovable, regardless of their plausibility, be compared to something that is an obviously fabricated absurdity? I truly saw a chip monk digging in my vegetable patch last week. No one else saw it, the physical evidence has been repaired, and I have no recording of the incident. It is unprovable and unknowable to anyone but me. Could my insistence that it happened be mocked by someone invoking the IPU? Are all things that are unprovable ridiculous to talk about? Could someone that gives no attributes to a creative force and makes no assumptions about it, but holds the idea that one could exist run the risk of being slammed by the IPU analogy? I guess I am wondering where or if a line is drawn.--67.187.72.116 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One field that is relevant to your chipmunk claim is police work and trying to judge the reliability of eyewitnesses. Our articles evidence and evidence (law) are relevant, as are proof (truth) and its sublinks. As for the IPU, the usual saying I'd reach for is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", a statement popularized by Carl Sagan. I don't find your chipmunk claim to be extraordinary, so your eyewitness testimony is probably enough for me to accept the truth of your claim; but if you were to also claim you saw the IPU in your back yard, I would be less credulous, and would require more evidence. As they say on the user forums these days, "Pics, or it didn't happen." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they say they "saw" the INVISIBLE pink unicorn, then you know it's a lie. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the existence of (any) God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPU is about falsifiablity — about the idea that there could never be any negative evidence against the existence of a God. This isn't the same situation at all as with your chipmunk: we could certainly consider conditions under which your story was simply impossible. (If you saw a visible pink unicorn in your backyard rooting through your vegetable patch, you'd probably start to doubt your own sanity — at that point, your own evidentiary organs are no longer valid!) Just because we cannot prove it one way or the other in your specific instance does not mean it is an unprovable assertion. This is different from the category of claims that the IPU is meant to represent. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So my instance is not important. The only thing that has to be shown is that A chip monk could possibly be digging in A vegetable patch?--67.187.72.116 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on the context. If your only defense from a murder charge is that you were busy chasing said chipmunk around your yard when the murder occurred, then you'd need more proof. The difference is, then you would have reason to lie, but otherwise you don't. Also, if you did just make up the chipmunk story, it really doesn't much matter, in normal circumstances, so demanding proof seems like a waste of time. Incidentally, we sometimes get people on the Ref Desk who demand proof of things as trivial and believable as this, presumably just to waste everyone's time. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: there is a difference in saying, "there could never be any evidence against you having witnessed a chipmunk in your garden" and saying, "there could never be any evidence against there ever being a chipmunk in your garden". The first is a rather limited claim, the latter is categorical. The comparative claims in a God scenario would be to question whether a specific instance of Godlike intervention had evidence (e.g. a miracle claim) versus the ability of marshaling evidence against God at all. IPU is used as an analogy for the latter, not the former. It means, in effect, "look, we can all create non-falsifiable explanations — it's easy and trivial." It is only analogous to situations in which you are creating non-falsifiable explanations. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chip monk (two words, with an "o")

chipmunk (one word, with a "u")

The first one doesn't even redirect. 138.192.56.24 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does now, thanks to me. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A chip monk is more likely to be a friar. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster may enjoy our reality article, particularly the "Truth vs. Fact" section. Did the chipmunk exist, or did it not? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the comparison. You could provide physical proof that chipmunks exist, could provide physical proof that you have a vegetable patch, and you could provide physical evidence that the former likes to dig around in the latter. You're not alleging new phenomena, or even really new entities.

If you could prove that invisible pink unicorns existed, and were native to your part of the world, then I would take you at your word that you claimed to see one. (Assuming that you could also explain how you saw something that was invisible.) APL (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn thing is more than an analogy, it tends to be used in a mocking way, sometimes friendly, usually not. It can easily be used in ways that belittle religious beliefs. It is frequently not used simply as an analogy, but as a comment about how stupid the other person is being. The OP worded its use as "being slammed". The FSM thing is similarly used. It reminds me of the use of the Christain fish symbol, with legs and the word "darwin" added. There are too many people who seem all too eager to wage some kind of religion vs. science war, and who are quick to ridicule the other side. The whole thing strikes me as counter-productive and mean spirited. Both the IPU and FSM memes were slightly funny the first couple of times I heard them, but after a while they just seem lame and snide. Personally, I find the God(s) as described by many religious people, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc, unlikely to an extreme, but hard-line atheism seems dogmatic and closed. The OP asked, "...someone that gives no attributes to a creative force and makes no assumptions about it, but holds the idea that one could exist". The IPU and FSM retorts are clearly meant to mock how unlikely it is for some specifically described deity to actually exist. That reality includes some kind of "creative force", left undescribed (perhaps with the added caveat that any term, like "creative force", is already missing the mark by describing it in words), seems blatantly obvious to me. At the risk of missing it again, let's call it "Tao". Invoking the invisible pink unicorn has no bearing on whether or not "Tao" exists. In fact, it could be taken to accord with this notion of some "Tao" that exists but cannot be described. The Tao that can be described is not the Tao. The unicorn that is pink is not visible. The IPU makes a decent Tao analogy. Pfly (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Russel's_teapot (and references therein). Also keep in mind absence of proof is not proof of absence... SemanticMantis (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional ordinations and conditional confirmations[edit]

Another technical question from one who is not a believer:

We have an article titled conditional baptism. The Council of Trent said dogmatically that the same thing applies to confirmation and to holy orders. Has either of the latter two sacraments ever been done conditionally? I'm fairly sure conditional baptisms have actually happened, but Wikipedia's article doesn't say so and cites neither instances nor statistics. Can those be provided in the article? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/baptism/private.html for the Church of England version: "IF thou art not already baptized, N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional sacraments, when I've discussed them with people who received them or ministered them, seem to be given in private, given their nature. As such, I'm not sure how easy it's going to be to find solid statistics. 86.164.60.255 (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, you ask if they (conditional confirmation and ordination) have ever been done: well, I've certainly heard of them being done, including from some people who say they have had them, but like I say it is generally performed privately and not made public. 86.164.78.220 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you've spoken with people who say they've been conditionally confirmed or conditionally ordained? Plural? More than one of each? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of each that said they had themselves, although this was online and not a Wikipedia-strong source. More people who suggested they were aware of them having been performed. Not article-quality sourcing. 86.164.78.220 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant to add this after your last question: you might have better luck with these questions at forums.catholic.com (Catholic Answers), one of whose stated aims is answering exactly this sort of question. It skews American, and has a couple of scary conservative posters, but otherwise seems very welcoming of this sort of thing: the main rules are that you have to be 'charitable' in your posts, and you shouldn't join just to try to convert Catholics! There's a section for terse, 'official' sort of answers to questions from a couple of people, and other sections for discussions of questions involving whoever, so I think it would give you decent answers to these sort of questions, better than I can. 86.164.60.255 (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, "86.164.60.255" and "AnonMoose". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some book recommendations[edit]

1. Can anyone name some famous welsh mystery novels that are not in a series? 2. Can anyone recommended a fantasy book for adults that is not in a series under 300 pages with a simple plot? Just to let you guys know I'm 27 years old. I like any kind of fantasy book as long as it not too wordy or abstract. I don't like Lord of the Rings. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like hard fantasy or comic fantasy? If the latter, then you can't go wrong with Terry Pratchett. I'd also recommend this collection of short comic fantasy stories - ISBN 978-0007385034 (I think; I borrowed it from the library ages ago, but the description on Amazon sounds about right, however I might be thinking of ISBN 978-1857236354). CS Miller (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might not meet all of your criteria but Welsh mystery makes me think of Cadfael. Our article on the author, Edith Pargeter says many of her other works are set in Wales or have Welsh characters so you might want to check that out. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl Service by Alan Garner is a Welsh fantasy/mystery.In fact all his books are pretty good and short. Hotclaws (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Beautiful/Most Handsome?[edit]

Hi, I been looking at the art of the human face for a couple of years now. I not only appreciate the diversity of the human face but also the similarities and universalities (nose, eyes, mouth, etc.)

What has given me a hard time recently is the hailing of someone like Aishwarya Rai or Angelina Jolie (eye roll) as the most beautiful. Is it because the exoticism of Rai's face? With the indian gold skin color and the eye color of the caucasoid race?

I know some of the things that are appealing to an individual maybe facial symmetry, flowing hair, etc. but is there subjective factors as well?

How can one person be considered the most beautiful for the entire human race?

Thoughts on this and who is worthy of the title of world's most handsome man?

Say, you see a good looking woman on the street. Is she worthy of world's most beautiful?

How on earth are these things decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.4.42 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you asked a similar question, in this thread on March 16, you were provided some links to read. Do you have any further questions, or are you just trying to get people to debate? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the BBC's QED program, in an episode called "The science of sexual attraction", shown on the 6th of March 1985, psychologist Michael Cunningham claimed that (by some broad consensus of he and other face measuring blokes) Jaclyn Smith had the most beautiful face (or at least, had a face that, of their sample, most closely matched the standard of proportion and symmetry that they claimed people called "beautiful"). New Scientist's review the following week (the 14th) decried the episode as "entertainment value", however. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More formally, Cunningham's academic paper in this area seems to be "Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty.", Cunningham, Michael R., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 50(5), May 1986, 925-935. The abstract of the paper discusses the measurements in question. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]